Tips for Tipping

With having worked in bars and restaurants for almost five years, I have seen that there are some misconceptions with tipping in particular. Here are the basics:

1) The lowest possible tip is 15% (exception being extremely poor service when restaurant is slow). Remember, servers have little control over the food that comes out of the kitchen and should not be punished by withholding a tip.

2) Parties of 6 or more (yes, even including kids) should tip at least 20%. If you can not afford this, try a take out option (not being mean). The more people in a party, the more demands are made: refills, condiments, kitchen errors, etc. along with the servers other tables.

3) If your party occupies more than one table make sure your tip includes gratuity on both tables. Servers have set sections and if you take two tables, that servers is losing out on another table, another tip.

4) If the restaurant is on a wait, do not "camp out". Enjoy your meal, dessert and a coffee but when everything is finish, it is time to leave. The more you sit, the less tables a server can receive and you are holding up others from being sat.

Senator Bill Clinton?

What if the Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton took the position of Secretary of State and Governor David Paterson appointed her husband, Bill Clinton? Senator Bill Clinton? Senator Clinton. It has a familiar ring, doesn't it? There are a lot of picks that would be worse, such as any of the no name, do nothing, downstate Congress members or New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo is not a bad choice, but I think Bill Clinton would be a better replacement. Bill Clinton brings knowledge, skills, and experience to a position and branch of government that needs some (actually it needs a lot). I truly believe that he would do a good job at the job. In the very least it would be both interesting and entertaining at the same time. He, I'm sure, would also enjoy again being in the limelight. Plus, he'd get more chicks as a Senator.

As Dan Lynch (AM 1300) pointed out on Friday, Bill Clinton would not be able to charge his large fees for speaking engagements around the world, potentially with nations that receive US foreign aid, as a Senator. If not chosen, his speaking fees creates a conflict of interest with Senator Hillary Clinton, if she became the United States' Secretary of State. The people of New York would also receive a better Senator than Hillary Clinton (he would do as good of a job if not better than the other names that have been suggested) and America can have a Secretary of State without a conflict of interest with her husbands' speaking fees in foreign nations. Nations that could and do receive foreign aid from the United States. This makes sense. It also sounds like a win-win.

David Paterson, I think you should at least consider appointing Bill Clinton to fill the anticipated vacancy by Senator Hillary Clinton resigning (it it happens). I can say this with a clear conscience as Governor Paterson will not appoint a Republican to fill the vacancy, so let's give Bill a shot. As I said before, we can do a lot worse. In Dr. Larry Sabato's A More Perfect Constitution, he suggests that past Presidents be appointed to the Senate as "National Senators". This would allow them to shed their expertise, leadership, and contacts as the only nationally elected officials that would bring a different prospective (Sabato, 2007).

This would not be the first time a President left office and returned to elected office. John Quincy Adams was elected to the House of Representatives after leaving the White House and Andrew Jackson was appointed by the Tenneessee state legislature.

Goodbye Hillary

When she was running for the Senate in 2000, Senator Hillary Clinton promised change for New York. Where is it? Now that she appears to be leaving, I will not shed a tear. I hope that Governor Patterson appoints an individual who has the State of New York in mind and not just future endeavors and higher offices. The Secretary of State position will be a good fit for her. There is no doubt that she is intelligent and strong, two good qualities for the highest diplomat in the Nation. I wish her good luck. Good luck and good riddance from all common sense New Yorkers.

A Big Three Bailout?

Should we bailout the Big Three American automakers? Should we give them a proverbial band aid on a gushing wound? Why would the American people (our tax dollars) pay for a group of businesses that have fought against higher gas standards, built inferior cars, and have fallen victim to the bully unions. Would this relief be temporary or would it be a permanent solution? Is there any way that Detroit can be profitable? I don't think so. There is no way with the current union contracts that the automakers can remain competitive with foreign auto makers. Toyota and other foreign makers pay their workers a good wage but it is about half of what Detroit pays. They can try to restructure under bankruptcy but if the principles and practices remain the same, they will fail.

This bailout will not solve the auto makers' problems. It is the survival of the fittest. Toyota, Honda, and others build better cars. Most people will attest to this. The Big Three had a time in history when they were the standard, now they are punchlines to jokes. It is sad that they will go under, but it is the fault of themselves, not the American tax payers.

We should not bail them out.

Call your Senators and tell them NO to the Detriot Bailout!

Change: Always Good?

If a majority of people think the country is going in the wrong direction, what is the right direction? Not in terms of foreign policy but domestic policy. Change is defined as "Radically Different". Wasn't there going to be "change" either way. Either we were going to elect the nation's first African-American President or the first woman Vice-President. Since the country has gone in the direction of less freedom and more Government and more spending, I nominate more freedom and less government and less spending. Am I wrong?

OK, everyone, here's a secret: sometimes change is not good. The following is a short list where change happens for the worst. Post yours if you wish. How many times have you gone to work and your boss said that "there are going to be some changes around here?". It is NEVER good. Some new random policy that you'd swear your boss stayed up all night before thinking about how to best drive the employees crazy. Or, if your significant other says "I need a change". Again, not good. Another example is with restaurants. How many times has food changed for the better? Either prices go up and/or portions get smaller. Normally it is "Honey, wasn't this dish bigger before and two dollars cheaper?". And lastly the expression: "Prices are Subject to Change" How many times has a price "changed" for the better (minus a sale)? Never. Be wary of self-naming labels. "The Peoples' Republic of China" comes to mind (which is an oxymoron). An Agent of Change might turn into an Agent for bad change. Be careful what you wish for.

About the Economy. There are many questions about the current economic situation that the country is in. Who's fault is it? How bad is it going to get? Here's my answer. 1) If there was a Republican to blame, that person would have been thrown in front of Congress and humiliated. Brought in front of every camera that could possibly be squeezed in, and 2) It is not going to be as bad as the Great Depression. Everything in between is a guess for anyone. I just hope President Obama surrounds himself with the brightest not just the most partisan. Buckle up, it is going to be a bumpy ride.

A New Direction for the GOP.

What is going to happen to the Republican party? We are the party of ideas and answers. What good is going to come after this slaughter of an election in 2008? How bad was it? Not only did the Democrats win the White House, picked up more seats in both the House and the Senate, won Gubernatorial elections but also state and local races across the country. To illustrate this point, back as an undergraduate in 2000, I took a class in State and Local Government. My professor made a comment that the New York State "Assembly will always be Democratic and the (New York State) Senate will always be Republican". Not even ten years later and almost a 1/2 century of New York State Republican Senate rule, the New York State Senate went from Republican to Democratic. For any one not familiar with New York State politics, imagine San Fransisco or New York City turning Republican. It would have been the same odds 10 years ago. We need to move the party into a new direction. But how?

One idea is that we move the party more towards the libertarian school of thought. For example, is it fiscally conservative to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to incarcerate one scum bag for one year? Billions of dollars are wasted every year on prisons that do not work. I am not advocating releasing prisons empty, but there are a large number of non-violent criminals, especially drug offenders, that would be better off serving their communities or working off their punishment. This would be more fiscally conservative to pay for than incarceration. Programs could include treatment, counseling, or innovative work programs. We could tax the drugs (and regulate them) and turn a loss into a revenue. Plus eliminating the petty crimes that go hand-in-hand with illegal drugs, it seems like a win-win.

We could put these people to work, doing constructive jobs around the country instead of costing the American-taxpayer billions of dollars. If that happens, then we never have to worry about not having room for the real violent individuals who should be locked up indefinitely to protect society. My right not to have a psycho hurt myself, my family or my friends outweighs a violent-repeat offender's right for freedom.

I know that Republicans are supposed to be tough on crime but maybe we should redefine what a crime is? To think that it would be impossible to turn the current Republican party Libertarian, just think, nobody thought 25 years ago that the Republican party would turn into such a spending machine and non-fiscally responsible tool of special-interests. This is not a fault of just President Bush or the Congress, but for all of us that did nothing about it. Shame on all of us. We need a party of better ideas not just pork spending. What do you think? In what new direction should the party move?

Obama Wins!: An end to the declining Social Capital in America?

Congratulations President-Elect Obama.

I know that it has been awhile since my last post and I apologize to all. It seems fitting that I am re-starting my blog the day after the historic election. To begin, I voted for Senator John McCain but after the country overwhelmingly chose the new direction that is Barrack Obama, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he really is going to lead from the middle (or at least right of the extreme left) that he ran from to became President-Elect of the United States. His associations frighten me but maybe they were blown out of proportion for the election. The world roared with excitement (which scares me). But I hope he can bring the country together and think about it: it would be beneficial if he was able to connect to world leaders that maybe were reluctant to connect to President George W. Bush (minus Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, North Korea). If anything, as McCain and others have stated, It is amazing how far the Civil Rights movement has come. The greatness of America lies in the fact that only in America could an African-American be elected the highest office in the world only after 40 years of voting. It wasn't that long ago that blacks and whites were separated at water fountains, buses, restaurants and schools. It would be interesting if any polls exist from the 1960's that asked respondents how long they thought it would take to elect an African-American.

How could it be a negative when we are looking at possibly the highest election totals in a century! What does this say to Robert Putnam's Social Capital Theory? A theory which includes political participation as one of the factors that determine the social fabric of a community. He concludes that social capital is on the decline in the United States when one looks at voting, social memberships, and interacting with family, friends, and neighbors. Contradicting declining voting trends throughout the 20th century, we recently have witnessed an expansion and explosion of political participation, a corner-stone to Putnam's theory.

Has Social Capital been on a decline? I have vigorously stated no throughout graduate school and as well as today. The way in which Barrack Obama used a grass-roots campaign that excited, energized, and got out the vote to millions of young and old, and white and black Americans, many of whom have never voted before, demonstrates that Social Capital is NOT on the decline. Besides the thousands or hundreds of thousands of volunteers that President Obama had recruited during his election, many more donated money as a symbol of their political participation in the historic vote, increasing social capital. Not to mention the thousands that volunteered and donated to Senator McCain. In conclusion to this point, Social Capital is not on a decline. (For more information on Social Capital read Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone)

Next, I vowed not to be like the bitter Democrats after the 2000 and the 2004 elections. They made me so mad saying "President Bush is not my President" actually, they would say "Bush is not my President" as most didn't even give him the respect of the Office by calling him "President". President Obama is my President and we all should support him (at least until he messes up). We need someone to unite the country passed our political differences and on to the real issues and legislation that need help so badly. I hope and pray that the person to do this is President Barrack Obama because we are either stuck with him, Vice President-Elect Biden, or Speaker of the House Pelosi for the next four years.

To you, President Obama, Good Luck!